We learned yesterday that president Obama is now sending weapons to the so called government of Libya. The weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS in that country. The real question, however, is why is the USA sending weapons to a government that is not in control of its own country? Why are we arming a government that will likely turn much of the weaponry over to the local branch of al Qaeda? Why are we sending weapons into a failed state that is nothing more than a volatile mix of armed groups already killing each other in a vain effort to try to gain control of the state? In short, is this another of those bone-headed moves by Obama in the Middle East for which the world is now paying such a steep price?
Think about it. In Iraq, Obama came to office after the military under president Bush had won the war there and defeated al Qaeda and the other insurgents. Rather than secure the victory, Obama rushed our forces out of the country, left a power vacuum, did nothing as the Shiites removed all of the Sunnis from positions of authority in order to get sole control, sat by as the Iraqi government moved very close to the mullahs in Iran, and then watched as ISIS came in to take over much of the Sunni area of Iraq. At that point, Obama decided to throw a few airstrikes at ISIS and send thousands of US troops back into harms way but to pretend that it was not combat. Despite telling America that he would destroy ISIS, it is over a year later and ISIS is still in control of essentially all the territory it held when that statement was made.
In Afghanistan, Obama came to office with only a low level of fighting in that country. He decided to up the ante big time there. He poured US forces into that country but told the enemy that they would only be there temporarily. The end result is that the Taliban went into hiding for a while. It fought the American forces, but it saved most of its juice for the time when those forces were all but withdrawn. Things have gotten so bad there that Obama has now kept ten thousand US troops in the country. It's more than enough to let casualties continue. It's nowhere near enough to change the outcome of the battle.
In Syria, Obama watched Assad start the civil war by using snipers to shoot peaceful demonstrators. Obama did not react even though swift action could have toppled the monster Assad when the opposition was just regular Syrians. As the civil war began, Obama did nothing to help the moderate Sunni forces with whom we could have allied. Instead, Obama stayed out of the fight so that the only opposition force with the weapons to withstand the onslaught from Assad was the terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda. Obama still did nothing. Then Assad started using chemical weapons despite Obama's warning that this was a red line for the USA. Obama did nothing again but got Assad to agree to get rid of chemical weapons. It's no surprise, however, that despite that agreement, chemical weapons are again being widely used in Syria. Then ISIS started taking territory in the Sunni regions of Syria. Obama did a repeat of his failed Iraq strategy. He threw a few airstrikes at ISIS and sent in thousands of US troops who are "not" in combat. It's only enough of a force to generate American casualties. It is not enough to have any impact on the battlefield.
So we then get to Libya. Here, we have both Obama and Hillary Clinton to blame for the mess. Libya was ruled by Gadaffi for decades. After the so called Arab Spring, there was an uprising in Libya and it was in the process of being crushed by Gadaffi's forces. At Hillary's urging, Obama sent American air power to attack the Gadaffi forces and save the rebels in Benghazi. Obama supported the rebels along with continued help from NATO allies. Gadaffi fell. Hillary thought it was a big victory, and so did Obama. The problem was that they had no plan for what to do once Gadaffi fell. Libya descended into total chaos where it remains today. ISIS has even appeared in Libya. That is a direct result of the silly adventures of Obama and Clinton against Gadaffi.
All of this makes us wonder whether arming the Libyan government forces is just another one of those poorly thought out Obama moves. What is the plan for tomorrow? How about the day after tomorrow? Has Obama even thought about it?
The American people have a right to know what our goal and general strategy in Libya are. Right now we don't even have lies from Ben Rhodes on the subject. That has to change. Obama has to enunciate his Libyan policy.
Think about it. In Iraq, Obama came to office after the military under president Bush had won the war there and defeated al Qaeda and the other insurgents. Rather than secure the victory, Obama rushed our forces out of the country, left a power vacuum, did nothing as the Shiites removed all of the Sunnis from positions of authority in order to get sole control, sat by as the Iraqi government moved very close to the mullahs in Iran, and then watched as ISIS came in to take over much of the Sunni area of Iraq. At that point, Obama decided to throw a few airstrikes at ISIS and send thousands of US troops back into harms way but to pretend that it was not combat. Despite telling America that he would destroy ISIS, it is over a year later and ISIS is still in control of essentially all the territory it held when that statement was made.
In Afghanistan, Obama came to office with only a low level of fighting in that country. He decided to up the ante big time there. He poured US forces into that country but told the enemy that they would only be there temporarily. The end result is that the Taliban went into hiding for a while. It fought the American forces, but it saved most of its juice for the time when those forces were all but withdrawn. Things have gotten so bad there that Obama has now kept ten thousand US troops in the country. It's more than enough to let casualties continue. It's nowhere near enough to change the outcome of the battle.
In Syria, Obama watched Assad start the civil war by using snipers to shoot peaceful demonstrators. Obama did not react even though swift action could have toppled the monster Assad when the opposition was just regular Syrians. As the civil war began, Obama did nothing to help the moderate Sunni forces with whom we could have allied. Instead, Obama stayed out of the fight so that the only opposition force with the weapons to withstand the onslaught from Assad was the terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda. Obama still did nothing. Then Assad started using chemical weapons despite Obama's warning that this was a red line for the USA. Obama did nothing again but got Assad to agree to get rid of chemical weapons. It's no surprise, however, that despite that agreement, chemical weapons are again being widely used in Syria. Then ISIS started taking territory in the Sunni regions of Syria. Obama did a repeat of his failed Iraq strategy. He threw a few airstrikes at ISIS and sent in thousands of US troops who are "not" in combat. It's only enough of a force to generate American casualties. It is not enough to have any impact on the battlefield.
So we then get to Libya. Here, we have both Obama and Hillary Clinton to blame for the mess. Libya was ruled by Gadaffi for decades. After the so called Arab Spring, there was an uprising in Libya and it was in the process of being crushed by Gadaffi's forces. At Hillary's urging, Obama sent American air power to attack the Gadaffi forces and save the rebels in Benghazi. Obama supported the rebels along with continued help from NATO allies. Gadaffi fell. Hillary thought it was a big victory, and so did Obama. The problem was that they had no plan for what to do once Gadaffi fell. Libya descended into total chaos where it remains today. ISIS has even appeared in Libya. That is a direct result of the silly adventures of Obama and Clinton against Gadaffi.
All of this makes us wonder whether arming the Libyan government forces is just another one of those poorly thought out Obama moves. What is the plan for tomorrow? How about the day after tomorrow? Has Obama even thought about it?
The American people have a right to know what our goal and general strategy in Libya are. Right now we don't even have lies from Ben Rhodes on the subject. That has to change. Obama has to enunciate his Libyan policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment